Dismissed

Padmavathi Sukumaran and Others v. Assia Beevi and Others

Kerala HC2 Jul 2009RCRev./150/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the Revision Petition challenging an eviction order. The court upheld the lower court's finding that eviction was justified due to subletting and the landlord's bona fide need. An extension of time to vacate was granted subject to conditions regarding rent arrears and an affidavit of surrender.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with directions to grant time up to 31.03.2010 to vacate on conditions of filing an affidavit of surrender and payment of rent arrears.

Padmavathi Sukumaran and Others Vs Assia… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

RCRev..No.150 of 2009

¶6

--------------------------RCA.26/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM RCP.1/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL

¶7

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶8

--------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. PADMAVATHI SUKUMARAN, AGED 62 YEARS AMC 827 & 823, OPPOSITE OF HEAD POST OFFICE ATTINGAL, ATTINGAL PO.

¶10

2. K.K.PADMARAJAN, AGED 60 YEARS AMC 827 & 828, RYDRA PHARMACY, OPPOSITE OF HEAD POST OFFICE ATTINGAL, ATTINGAL PO.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶13

--------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. ASSIA BEEVI, W/O. A.MOHAMMED SYED AGED 67, SALIM NIVAS, OPPOSITE OF LIC OFFICE ATTINGAL.

¶15

2. HASEENA.A, D/O.ASSIA BEEVI, AGED 45 SALIM NIVAS, OPPOSITE OF LIC OFFICE ATTINGAL.

¶16

3. M.SALIM, S/O.MOHAMMED SYED, AGED 43 SALIM NIVAS, OPPOSITE OF LICE OFFICE ATTINGAL.

¶17

4. M.FEROZ, S/O.MOHAMMED SYED ,AGED 40 SALIM NIVAS, OPPOSITE OF LIC OFFICE ATTINGAL.

¶18

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶20

P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶21

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2009

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Barkath Ali, J

¶25

In this Rent Control Revision Petition filed under

¶26

Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the defeated tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the

¶27

Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

¶28

The landlords/revision respondents filed Rent

¶29

Control Petition No.1/04 before the Rent Control Court, Attingal claiming eviction under Section 11(2)

¶30

(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Act alleging

¶31

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009

¶32

-2-

¶33

that the first revision petitioner/tenant has defaulted payment of rent from February, 2003 onwards; that the first revision petitioner sublet the petition schedule building to the second revision petitioner; that first respondent's husband i.e fourth respondent bona fide requires the petition schedule shop room for carrying on the business of sale of Ayurvedic medicine.

¶34

The revision petitioners, tenant and the

¶35

alleged sub tenant resisted the claim of the landlords on the ground that there are no arrears of rent; that the bona fide need urged by the landlords is not genuine and that the first revision petitioner has not sublet the building to the second revision petitioner and that the tenant is still conducting the business in the petition schedule shop room.

¶36

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009

¶37

-3-

¶38

PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4

¶39

and X1 to X3 were marked on the side of the respondents/landlords. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked on the side of the revision petitioners before the Rent Controller. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of evidence found that there are no arrears of rent and rejected the claim of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, but found that the first revision petitioner sublet the building to the second revision petitioner; that the first revision petitioner had ceased occupying the building for more than six months and that the bona fide need urged by the fourth revision respondent is genuine and that the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 and ordered

¶40

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009

¶41

-4-

¶42

eviction under Section 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority on an appeal filed by the tenant confirmed the said findings of the Rent Control Court.

¶43

Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, tenant and the alleged sub tenant argued that the landlords have constructed other shop rooms in the same property; that there are about ten shop rooms in the possession of landlords and that therefore, the bona fide need urged by the landlords is not genuine; that the fourth revision respondent is conducting an Ayurvedic medical shop at Kollam; that normally a person would not shift his business from his permanent place of business and start fresh business in another place; that the tenant

¶44

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009 -5-

¶45

is still conducting business at the said shop room and

¶46

that therefore, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority went wrong in ordering eviction of the revision petitioners.

¶47

We have gone through the evidence adduced

¶48

by both sides before the Rent Control Court and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and

¶49

the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent control Court as well as the Appellate Authority ordering eviction under Section 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11 (4)(v) of the Act. That being so, the Revision Petition has to be dismissed.

¶50

Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel for the

¶51

revision petitioners sought for one year's time to

¶52

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009

¶53

-6-

¶54

vacate the premises. The said request is opposed by Sri.Shahul Hameed Mooppan, counsel for the revision respondents. We feel that as the revision petitioners are conducting business in the petition schedule building, time up to 31^st March, 2010 can be granted to them to vacate the building on the following conditions:-

¶55

The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from today undertaking to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building on or before 31/03/2010. On receipt of the said affidavit, the execution court shall adjourn the E.P. to 01/04/2010.

¶56

The first revision petitioner shall pay the

¶57

arrears of rent as on today till the date of surrender to

¶58

R. C. R. No.150 of 2009 -7-

¶59

the landlords or deposit the same before the Rent Control Court within one month from today.

¶60

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed

¶61

with the above directions. Both parties shall bear their

¶62

own costs.

¶63

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶64

P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE

¶65

kns/-

Padmavathi Sukumaran and Others v. Assia Beevi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmavathi Sukumaran and Others v. Assia Beevi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alavi Haji Vs Premalatha

The N.T.P.C. Ltd. Vs Vilasini Kunjamma

Vilasini Kunjamma Vs State of Kerala

Kurien Jose Vs State of Kerala

Xavier Vs Special Tahsildar

V.Balan Vs P.K.Chathukutty Kurup